--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > By comparison at least three groups I know of -- > > > Mindfulness Meditation, Sahaja Meditation and > > > Vipassana Meditation -- teach FOR FREE and > > > always have. They don't look at what they do as > > > a way of making money; the TMO does. > > > > > > > No one else has ever come forward with the resources or > > > > a plan to teach as many kids ANY meditation technique. > > > > > > The groups mentioned above are not trying to > > > recruit people into their cult and finding them- > > > selves unable to do so without marketing to kids.
This assumes the only reason anyone would want to teach meditation of any kind to kids is for recruiting purposes, which is obviously not the case. *You* just said, "I really do think that kids would benefit from learning a simple form of meditation while still kids." Are you really going to maintain that groups that teach meditation for free aren't teaching kids on a large scale because they aren't interested in recruitment? Do you really believe none of these groups thinks, as you do, that it would be good for the kids to learn meditation? > > If the groups you mentioned teach for free, why are they > > not capable of implementing a program to teach as many > > kids in the schools as the TMO is willing and able to do? > > You keep evading the point in an attempt to > obfuscate, Raunchy. Actually, that would be Barry who is evading Raunchy's point in an attempt to obfuscate. > The **TM organization** was not capable of > creating such a program. They had to get > someone to do it for them. The question is *why* the TMO hasn't done so on its own, not whether it's capable of doing so. Of course it is; goodness knows it has the resources. How many times have we seen the complaint that it doesn't teach for free given its vast financial coffers? But it has never been willing to teach TM for free in countries that could afford to pay for it. It got badly burned with the New Jersey program; from then until now it hasn't attempted a large-scale project but has been working with individual schools in ways that would be unlikely to inspire court challenges. We don't know who came up with the idea for Lynch's current program. Lynch's foundation was begun in 2005, so he's been doing this sort of thing for a while now. The fact is that at least so far, no other group that teaches meditation, for free or otherwise, has had a wealthy celebrity adherent who was willing to take on the effort and costs involved in such a project and use his/her popularity to promote it. And if there were a group that did have such an adherent, would it have the personnel and motivation to implement a similar program on the same scale? <snip> > So it's not really as if the TM movement GAVE > A DAMN about these kids. This is so silly it hardly merits comment. MMY's whole reason for teaching TM in the first place was that it was good for people. It's not impossible there are a few exceptions, but virtually everyone in the TMO is still motivated by MMY's messianism. They just see this > as a way to allow someone they normally would > never associate with (David Lynch) to do all > the P.R. and "heavy lifting" for them, while > they sit back and rake in $600 a head for each > student instructed. The "heavy lifting" is partly a matter of getting past the legal issue, as I suggested above, and partly the TMO's longstanding principle of not teaching for free in countries that have the resources to pay for it. And the TMO is hardly "sitting back," nor is it letting Lynch do "all the P.R." It's clearly a joint effort between Lynch and the TMO. > Stop trying to portray the TMO as somehow noble > in this endeavor. David Lynch might be, Paul > McCartney and Ringo and the others might be. > But the TMO is in it for the same reason they > have *always* been into it -- for the money and > to grow the cult. IMO, of course. Opinions based on assertions contrary to fact aren't worth a whole helluva lot. IMO, of course.
